Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, at a coffee shop in Denver on Friday, Sept. 12, 2014. (Jon Murray, The Denver Post)

It’s no secret several of Colorado’s political races are drawing national attention (yet again). But trying to help Sen. Mark Udall defeat his Republican challenger, U.S. Rep. Cory Gardner, and Andrew Romanoff unseat Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman isn’t the only reason for a three-day visit to Colorado this week by Ilyse Hogue, president of national abortion rights advocacy group NARAL Pro-Choice America.

She’s also here, through Saturday night, because anti-abortion advocates are making their third electoral try at passing a Colorado personhood-type amendment. Hogue and her allies are fighting a similar (though more far-reaching) proposed amendment this year in North Dakota that looks more like past efforts in Colorado. Here, proposed Amendment 67 is aimed explicitly at adding unborn children to protections in the criminal code and the wrongful death law.

It says: “In the interest of protecting mothers and their unborn children from criminal offenses and unborn children from criminal offenses and negligent and wrongful acts, the words ‘person’ and ‘child’ in the Colorado criminal code and Colorado death act must include unborn human beings.”

But Hogue is among those who believe the limited-sounding wording would have far-reaching effects including outlawing abortion and potentially restricting birth control, assertions that Amendment 67 backers dispute (more on that later).

Hogue, during an interview at a coffee shop on East Colfax Avenue Friday morning, said she hoped Colorado voters — who are used to passionate discussions about such measures — don’t get complacent about Amendment 67’s chances. Previous tries to pass stronger personhood measures failed by 70 percent or more of the vote in Colorado in 2008 and 2010.

“The Personhood USA folks know that 12 losses will be erased by a single win,” Hogue said. “Everybody forgets about the losses. That’s why they keep coming back, and why they keep coming back in a state like Colorado. … (Amendment 67 backers) also are doubling down on resources, and they learn from each battle. That’s why they don’t use ‘personhood’ now, because they know that loses (with voters). … They’re getting more savvy in their language.”

Hogue is helping to open a Vote NO 67 field office in Stapleton Saturday as well as a Romanoff field office, and she plans to go out on door-to-door teams for each. She’ll also attending a Women for Udall event Friday night. She’s made other visits to Denver this year, and she may be back again before the Nov. 4 election.

Of course, as candidates go, there’s a reason she’s focused mostly on helping Udall and Romanoff: They’ve been debating Coffman and Gardner about the congressmen’s past support for personhood measures; both Republicans have distanced themselves from such stances. (Read about Gardner here, and Coffman here.)

Hogue says activists’ work on both sides of the Amendment 67 fight could affect turnout, impacting other races in one way or another.

“Colorado is not a state that’s afraid to fight on these issues,” Hogue said, unlike some more conservative states where Democrats shy away from battle on abortion and other issues.

I called Susan Sutherland from Colorado Right to Life, one of the amendment’s chief supporters, to ask if she thought Hogue’s work and that of other national abortion-rights groups would resonate with Colorado voters.

Sutherland had plenty to say. While Amendment 67 opponents are unloading about far-ranging potential consequences of this year’s version of the amendment, Sutherland took Hogue and others to task for what she considers fear-mongering.

“From our side, we just wish that we could have an honest discussion,” said Sutherland, the group’s vice president. “I would ask her why Planned Parenthood and NARAL think so little of women that they think these women are not capable of making a decent decision about Amendment 67. How does lying about it help them?”

She pointed to claims by the Vote NO 67 campaign and others that Amendment 67 could impede access to some forms of contraception and that pregnant women could be denied access to some life-saving medical treatments. Those claims are based on the idea that the amendment’s expansion of persons to include “unborn human beings” would give unborn children constitutional rights that would serve as a toe-hold for challenging other laws.

The Vote NO 67 campaign points to talking points on Colorado Right to Life’s website that includes an urging for the amendment’s backers to “Please support the abolition of human abortion in every way that God enables you.”

But Sutherland says that’s meant to reflect supporters’ common opposition to abortion, not the effect of the amendment if it passes. “Amendment 67 is a fetal homicide bill that’s going to recognize a mother and a baby as victims of crime,” Sutherland said, and no more. She added: “If Roe v. Wade were not the law of the land, Amendment 67 could have that effect. … Unfortunately, Amendment 67 is not a full-blown abortion ban. I’d love to see that. But it’s a different type of measure.”

Past personhood-type measures have split anti-abortion groups in Colorado, and that’s again the case.

Colorado Citizens for Life provided President Steven Ertelt’s take on Amendment 67 to my colleague Lynn Bartels: “Colorado Citizens for Life understands unborn children are unique human beings, or persons, whose lives began at conception and who deserve legal protection from abortion,” Ertelt wrote. “However, a personhood amendment like Amendment 67 will not provide that protection because it would be immediately overturned in court as contravening Roe v. Wade, and it would not be upheld by the Supreme Court. This is why Colorado Citizens for Life is working to pass (other) pro-life legislation that will save unborn children from abortion now, protect women, and protect Coloradans from being forced to pay for abortions with their tax dollars.”

No, they are nothing like those things. May I suggest a biology class at your local Community College?

Best,

D

IndyThought

I bet you’ve drowned puppies and kittens on occasion.
Be honest…

oldcap

The thought of one who is not bound by any morality other than her/his own.

IndyThought

I respect and defend all life.
By avoiding my question it would appear your morality is quite selective.

oldcap

Do you respect and defend HUMAN life enough to adopt and raise one of the “children” you fought so hard to “save” AFTER he/she is born and is a real person?

IndyThought

Absolutely. But my defense of human life does not require that I adopt – that is only a false standard created by the pro-abortion zealots.

oldcap

In fact, it DOES, unless you want to deal with people thinking you aren’t really serious about your commitment.

IndyThought

Wrong. You continue to make a false argument for purely political reasons.
Nothing but a transparent double standard.

oldcap

And YOU continue to refuse to shoulder your responsibility to real BORN children.

Migrant3

Udall and Romanoff seem to have only one complaint against their opponents. One would think that Senators and House members don’t anything except consider abortion rights?

RobertChase

It is probative of other outrages their Fascist opponents would make against our rights that they seek to intrude on women’s prerogative to terminate pregnancy — the prevarication about “personhood” hasn’t helped them one bit, nor have their desperate attempts to distance themselves from positions most voters have the sense to understand they have not really abandoned.

dougmcburney

“terminate pregnancy” is newspeak for “murder baby”…

RobertChase

No; all babies are born (or at least, delivered).

IndyThought

An all babies still grow inside a womb, not a test tube.

GenePH

The ‘battle’ is only coming from the left. They need the issue. There is no abortion issue related to the Republican’s platform.

““From our side, we just wish that we could have an honest discussion,”
said Sutherland, the group’s vice president. “I would ask her why
Planned Parenthood and NARAL think so little of women that they think
these women are not capable of making a decent decision about Amendment
67. How does lying about it help them?”’

She doesn’t want an HONEST debate; she wants a debate where she gets to define the terms and the parameters.

dougmcburney

God already defined the term “human life”. And you don’t get to change it. At least not forever. Vote YES on 67!

RobertChase

No.

dougmcburney

I’d think you’d be attracted by a righteous amendment opposed by both parties…

RobertChase

You and stevenertelt are wasting your efforts here — can’t you hear the voice of God calling you two to go evangelize Western Iraq?

oldcap

“God already defined the term “human life”. And you don’t get to change it

‘And since the USA is not an ISIS-style theocracy, “god” doesn’t get to have a vote.

dougmcburney

And He’ll vote regarding you on Judgment Day. And He’ll remind you of the times you did not defend the least of His children.

Some things are bigger than Democrat & RE-publican politics…

oldcap

“And He’ll remind you of the times you did not defend the least of His children.”
If your god is a moral one, she/he will judge YOU more harshly for not adopting one of those “babies” you fought so hard to “save” before they were born and were people.
Never fear, though, because “god’ is a figment of your ingratiation, and he/she/it is as fictional as the Easter Bunny.

IndyThought

The point is that adoption is a humane alternative to killing, but you wield this viable choice as a weapon.
Makes no sense.

oldcap

Except to point out the absolute hypocrisy of the so-called rightofetallifers who worship the “child” from conception to birth and then, like Pilate on the balcony, wash their hands of it
Then it becomes VERY useful.
So I repeat: How many children have YOU adopted?

IndyThought

One.
There are many couples who want to adopt – more in fact than available American children so these couples have to look oversees.
Now, where do you get the chutzpah to demand an adoption as a litmus test for the majority of us who want to protect all human life?
That is a very hypocritical position to take.

oldcap

“Now, where do you get the chutzpah to demand an adoption as a litmus
test for the majority of us who want to protect all human life?”

Because that “litmus test” will show the REAL depth of your commitment to human life.
Just the fact that you are raising the question you are shows that your answer, and your commitment, are indeed VERY shallow.
If you and your ilk are going to propose that the nanny state have the power to determine the future of a woman’s pregnancy, than that same government has the power to determine that you and those who “think” as you do be required to adopt.

IndyThought

My commitment to protecting human life far eclipses your wanton respect for that life. All you do is flame while hiding behind your ideology.

oldcap

NO!
As the father of an adopted son, I expect you to live by the SAME standard I do.

IndyThought

Your standard is no standard because you condone the taking of an innocent human life.
You need to own your hypocrisy.

oldcap

That’s turning logic on its head.
If you refuse your obligation to personally adopt one of the “babies” you fought so hard to save before they were born and were persons, then surely you must agree to huge tax increases to insure that these BORN children do not suffer from hunger, illness, a poor education, and all the other ills that accompany some children’s lives.
Surely you recognize your responsibility to these children, right?
RIGHT??

IndyThought

You condone the taking of innocent human lives.
That says it all.

oldcap

I neither condone not condemn.
I say women are to be the sole arbiters of that choice – not you, not me, not the state, and especially no sky pixie.
BTW, I have 4 daughters and 2 granddaughters of child bearing age, and I will thank you to keep your nonsense FAR away from any and all of them.

IndyThought

By not condemning the taking of innocent human life you have clearly indicated your position.
It’s what I knew all along – false standards and hypocrisy.

oldcap

No other person, least of all a MAN, has a right to an opinion on the most difficult choice a woman my ever make.
I respect her right to do so without interference from any busybody.

IndyThought

Failure to condemn, or tacitly condoning the taking of an innocent human life is something no woman, or man, has the right to do.
All human beings have an inherent right to their life.
Your hypocrisy is glaring.

oldcap

The only hypocrisy being shown is on the part of those who would support a fetus’s “Right to Life” from conception to birth and then abandon it once it becomes a person.

IndyThought

You are repeating the same hypocrisy and conditional values on human life.
I am ashamed for you.

oldcap

That which makes you ashamed makes me PROUD!

IndyThought

I thought that would be the case.
Good for you.

oldcap

Thank you.
Once I freed myself from slavish obedience to other people’s rules, I became far more moral and ethical

IndyThought

It shows.

oldcap

Thank you for recognizing it.

IndyThought

You are easy to recognize.

oldcap

Indeed.
We are the ones who live free and independent lives, not the ones cowering in fear of what some Sky Pixie might do.

IndyThought

You’re babbling again…

oldcap

Just because YOU don’t get the idea of living free of the terror of some Sky Pixie’s judgment should not be taken to mean that I am babbling.

IndyThought

You are babbling because what you are saying makes no sense whatsoever.
But good for you.

oldcap

It seems like babbling only to those who are entrapped by their ideology to fear some Sky Pixie.

IndyThought

You seem fixated on some imaginary character – are you sure you are not the persons of which you babble?
I think you are.

oldcap

To come back to the original; topic of the debate: Please explain why you would interpose the nanny state between a woman and her doctor?

IndyThought

To answer the sentinel question, why do you value human life on a conditional basis and babble about imaginary characters?

oldcap

No, the better question is why you would sacrifice a born, living woman on the altar of her fetus.

IndyThought

A fetus is a human being, and a human life.
You continue to devalue that life for nothing more than political ideology.
That comes off as very shallow, along with the hyperbole that a women is somehow being sacrificed because of a human life she helped create.

oldcap

A fetus is a potential person.
A pregnant woman is a real person, and yet you would let theory trump reality.
You show an appalling contempt for your fellow PERSONS.

IndyThought

A fetus is an established human being. Nothing potential there. Fetuses as young as 22 weeks gestation are viable. No theory – fact.
Your fantastical illogical thinking is your undoing.

oldcap

OPf cure it has the DNA of a human and not a bird, squirrel, or donkey, but it is still not a person.
That requires birth.
Now tell us why:
1. You would interpose the nanny state between a living female person and the choice she must make about the future of her pregnancy
and
2. Why you would sacrifice a living human person on the altar of her fetus, which is at best a POTENTIAL person.

IndyThought

Birth is not a requirement to be a human being. You are spouting political nonsense. A fetus is a human being. Biological fact.
You are creating a false rubric within which to place your selective respect for human life in a cowardly dodge of those facts.
Most pro-abortion zealots cannot bring themselves to admit that a human life is terminated during elective abortions. Count yourself in that select group.

oldcap

I understand that, when dealing with a radical anti-abortionist and hater of women, that words take on meanings unintended by commons usage, so I will excuse your misuse of the English language
Sine we do not live in Alice’s Wonderland where eggs = chickens, acorns = oaks, and fetuses = persons, I will continue to say, as normal people do that eggs =/= chickens, acorns =/=oaks, and fetuses =/= people.
At any rate, it’s not up to you, me, or the law to substitute our choice for that of the choice of the only person entitled to an opinion on the subject of the future of a woman’s pregnancy – she herself.

IndyThought

Your selective respect for human life is astounding.
I am still ashamed for you.
Most americans feel that on-demand abortion is wrong.

Reasonable limits on elective abortion are coming now that the age of fetal viability continues to decrease.

Expect and accept it. It is societies will irrespective of the imaginary and convenient rationalizations pro-abortionists use to dehumanize the weakest among us.

daruggedman

You seem to care so much for unborn babies. Where is your compassion for gun violence victims? Why are you pro-death penalty? Why did you support the Iraq war?

IndyThought

Birth is not a requisite to be a human being. It is silliness to compare an oak tree and acorn to a human being and a human fetus.
Fetuses are human beings, just like their parents. No amount of political spin can change those basic biologic facts.

oldcap

Well whadda know.
A concession that the fetus a woman carries is human.
Nice to know that it’s not a dodo, an a**, or a rhino.
That being said, the fact still remains that it is not up to you, to me, or to the law to determine the future of any woman’s pregnancy.
That choice is reserved to her and her alone.
For anyone to try to interpose him/her/itself between that woman and her choice is the worst kind of misogyny.
Case closed.

Shaupeen

Keep fighting the good fight Ilyse!

User Nick P

Abortion aborts about 400,000 would be woman every year, so I don’t know why liberals call it woman’s rights. Perhaps Ilyse forgot how she came to exist.

Terri

It will be gratifying to say no once again to perverts who think they have the right to control and shame women.

RobertChase

“My rights do not end where theirs begin” — do elaborate.

Terri

Nope… Don’t have to elaborate. The intolerance of control freaks is self explanatory. The endless droning of lie after lie about “those stupid liberal and immoral women” who think they have the right to make personal decisions about their own bodies and their own families is sexual harassment.

RobertChase

I meant to suggest that you might express yourself more clearly — sorry for the suggestion! You should be tarred and feathered for voting Collaborationist (Democratic); together with the Fascist (Republican) Party these two anti-American political organizations have criminalized the supposed “land of the free” to the point that it is now the world’s leading jailer, the least free (and one of the most violent) societies on Earth!

IndyThought

When pro-abortion women stop dehumanizing the helpless human beings they like to refer to as parasites, then you might have a leg to stand on.

stevenertelt

On the issue of abortion, it’s Mark Udall who is the extremist:

On 80 votes on pro-life issues related to abortion Mark Udall voted for abortion every time. Udall has voted almost 80 times in support of abortion or abortion funding and who has repeatedly voted against banning partial-birth abortions.

Even if Udall had voted for the abortion regulations you’ve supported Steve, he’d still be voting to affirm abortion. Because your rules are what actually codify abortion in the state law, (not Roe v Wade). Your rules regulate in law and statute how and when certain innocent children can be legally killed. And the partial birth abortion ban you cite, (written by lawyers influenced by you in the “pro-life industry”) reads like a manual on how to butcher and dismember babies. Check it out here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-380.ZS.html

That’s not pro life. Support for the personhood of the unborn is pro-life!

stevenertelt

They don’t enshrine abortion at all. Once the Supreme Court makeup is changed to the point that Roe can be overturned, state laws that ban abortions can include repealer language to remove those statutes or render them neutral as long as the ban is in place and enforceable should the pro-abortion side overturn the ban. Repealer bills are commonplace in state legislatures.

Many of the votes Udall cast have to do with fund abortions in multiple instances, so unless you favor forcing people to pay for abortions there is really no reason to oppose such measures stopping taxpayer funding of abortions.

As far as the partial-birth abortion ban is concerned, the bans in multiple states have been proven to have stopped thousands of abortions. Unless you favor abortion, saving those babies from abortion is a good thing. It makes me curious to see someone who claims to be pro-life opposed to banning abortions!

And no one who is pro-life opposes personhood for unborn children. The question is whether one supports an amendment that has absolutely no chance of saving a single baby from abortion now, if ever, or saving as many babies as possible now from abortion until all can be saved.

dougmcburney

Do the regulations you’ve supported include “repealer language”? If so I was unaware of it.

I know many of them do codify specifically how and when certain innocent persons (persons is the word you use to describe them by the way) can be legally killed.

When Dr. Dobson said; “Ending partial birth abortion… does not save a single human life.” He must have been unaware of the proof you have for “thousands”.

And since the Supreme Court ruling itself explicitly describes how to kill a a baby without violating the ban, I can’t help but think Dobson was right, and you are wrong.

stevenertelt

The regulations that save babies from abortion and close down abortion clinics don’t have repealer language, but such language is easy to insert in any bill to ban abortions that any state legislature would approve following the overturning of Roe v. Wade. But repealer language probably wouldn’t be necessary in the first place because if abortion is not legal than those statutes like informed consent or parental notification would just be unenforced or ignored statutes. It’s ultimately a non-issue that has no bearing on whether a state would ban or not ban abortions in a post-Roe climate.

Such statutes do not provide when or how unborn children can legally be killed. They provide additional protections for unborn children in that they put the kinds of mechanisms in place that help women find abortion alternatives or stop funding or encourage teens to talk to their parents. Unless, of course, you’d just rather those babies be aborted until we can ban abortions. Why are you so opposed to pro-life laws that save babies now until we can save them all? Seems to me to be a justification for some abortions.

I’m not aware of Dobson saying the partial-birth abortion ban wouldn’t save any babies from abortions since he supported the ban. Assuming he had said it, he’s incorrect. The states in which partial-birth abortions occured at the highest rates — New Jersey, Kansas, Louisiana for example — all saw declines in abortions in the second trimester after the bans.

Casey Mattox, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, has estimated that the ban has saved 11,000 babies from abortion — and that estimate was more than two years ago, making it so that number is higher now. Unless you’re a Planned Parenthood staffer, saving babies from abortion is a good thing.

It’s interesting that you’re deflecting criticism from the fact that the personhood amendment would be overturned in court and not save a single baby from abortion. The amendment will lose buy a landslide again in November and won’t be approved anyway so what happens in court isn’t really relevant, but I find it curious that your defense of spending countless dollars and hours on an amendment that will not stop a single abortion is to attack pro-life legislation that has proven to save babies from abortion.

This is my last post here, there’s no need to flood the Denver Post comments with an endless debate. You’re welcome to email me any time.

dougmcburney

Your abortion regulations get overturned all the time, like in Texas over the past few weeks. Yet you soldier on.

And in the aftermath of such rulings you’re stuck debating ambulatory surgical center rules and the nuances of hospital privileges.

I know the court will issue opinions against Personhood before the ink is dry. But in the aftermath of such a ruling politicians and citizens will be debating the crux of the issue: Is the unborn child a Person? And that’s a debate worth having. And one we can win if our side would just stop compromising on God’s command that we should not murder.

RobertChase

If you two could only reach agreement, Personhood might poll 30% this year.

On Judgment Day, as you try to explain to the Living God that you advocated for the killing of His children, see how far your constitutional sniff test argument gets you…

Terri

I’ve done nothing wrong. Shaming innocent people is what the pharisees did in Jesus’s time. In modern society (here in America) , extremists can’t get away with doling out “God’s judgement” by stoning people to death or committing other barbaric acts like the extremists in the bible were known to do and what ISIS is doing now. I believe that health care decisions (whether it be reproductive or any other health care decisions) should be between doctors, patients, and the people involved. Community lynch mobs should leave people alone and not crucify them.

dougmcburney

The decision to murder an innocent person is not a “health care decision”.

Terri

All pregnancies are not alike. Medical emergencies happen sometimes that are beyond anyone’s control. To call abortion murder is wrong irregardless of the false accusations of the far right. Most women who have them is not because they do it as a form of birth control, but because for very personal reasons they are unable to carry a pregnancy to term. To force women to carry to term a pregnancy that would kill her is female-genocide. It’s very wrong and cruel to shame women who are grieving because they didn’t have a viable pregnancy. The far right should be ashamed of themselves for sexually harassing grieving women.

dougmcburney

Terri: I didn’t realize how much you are hurting. The pain of everything that’s happened to you must be hard to bear. If you would like to talk to someone who understands your situation the number to my church is 303-463-1707. If you leave me a message there, I’ll get in touch with you.

Tbone

Who said she’s hurting?

Terri

No thank you. I have great friends and a wonderful family.They are good people who wouldn’t want me to get indoctrinated into a cult.

IndyThought

Recognizing that a fetus is a helpless human being is a laudable goal, particularly since pro-abortionists continue to use dehumanization and selective human “rights” in their illogical quest to keep abortion unregulated.

dougmcburney

You are witnessing a great schizm the anti-abortion movement between those who wish to continue with the regulation of murder, and those who wish to abolish the practice.

Both sides call the unborn child a person.

Stay tuned to see if at some point both sides are willing to pursue efforts to codify that fact in law and statute.

RobertChase

Schismatic!

Colorado Fetal Personhood, Amendment 62 of 2010, lost in a landslide by forty-one percent (41%), and Amendment 67 attempting to confer legal status as a person on fetuses will also lose. That two ostensible backers immediately set to arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin does not bode well for your chances of even improving on your crushing defeat in 2010.

dougmcburney

Ertelt is not a backer of Personhood legistation.

He is a sworn enemy. He’s more like you; he prefers to regulate the murder of innocent people. He understands that in order to pass rules ostensibly intended to save some babies, other babies have to be sacrificed as exceptions. So I say he’s “like” you, because apparently you support the killing of any and all babies anybody chooses to kill.

Steve Ertelt is Pro abortion with some exceptions, and you are simply pro-abortion.

RobertChase

False — you have wasted a whole lot of space accusing Ertelt of being pro-abortion without adducing a single fact in support; my impression is that he will vote for the Amendment. You also libel me by your misuse of the word “babies”. What about the great unfinished task of evangelizing the Muslims?

stevenertelt

Most pro-life laws are upheld. And Texas’ law is only at the beginning stages of the legal battle. One judge’s ruling is not the end of it. Regardless, while the law was in place, it closed abortion centers — cutting abortions 13 percent, saving an estimated 9,900 babies from abortion. Maybe those babies don’t matter to you, but they matter to the rest of us.

Yes, a debate on whether the unborn child deserves legal protection is a debate worth having — but the millions of dollars and thousands of volunteer hours spent on an amendment that has zero chance of saving a single baby from abortion could be better spent on actions that will actually end abortion.

dougmcburney

So far the strategy to “end abortion” by cleaning it up and regulating it, is a miserable failure that has taught a generation of politicians that they can claim to be “pro-life” while tolerating, and even advocating the murder of some innocent people. This strategy ensures America will never end legal abortion.

And setting any dubious statistics about “estimated saved babies” aside, God cares just as much for the babies abortion regulators have advocated be sacrificed in order to pass your abortion regulations.

This battle is about more than temporal political victories Steve. It is about upholding the commandment, (and the commandment is without exception).

stevenertelt

It’s not a “strategy.” Changing the Supreme Court to overturn Roe and allow for an abortion ban is the only way to end abortion. You’ve already admitted the personhood amendment is DOA in court because of that. It won’t end abortion.

So while we work to change the courts, are going to do nothing to save unborn babies or save as many as you can? You’re bashing us for saving the babies we can while we work to end all abortions as soon as possible. That’s hardly “upholding the commandment.”

Please, please keep preaching to me about the babies God cares about as you oppose the very laws that are providing them at least some protection until abortion ends.

dougmcburney

Changing the court is not the only way Steve. Abortion regulators have been feeding that failed tactic to well meaning conservatives for 30 years, and here we are in 2014, with the same abortion on demand advocated by the Roe & Doe decisions.

Amending the Constitution is a valid avenue to changing the law. And a court fight over Personhood could force the court to reconsider the broader issue of Personhood, which none of your regulations, when argued in court, have ever even tried to do.

The abortion regulations written and supported by the pro life industry have served only alter the means by which the innocent are killed, (which you incorrectly call “some protection”), and made the abortion industry appear more palatable to the public, (hey, they’re following the rules written by the pro-lifers aren’t they?).

And the worst sin of all was training a generation of politicians to believe they could tolerate, advocate, and even write instructions on how and when innocent people may be legally killed, and still consider themselves “pro-life”.

If we, the Christians do not teach the heathens and politicians, who will Steve?

stevenertelt

And the amendment would be overturned in court because the Supreme Court is pro-abortion — something you’ve already admitted earlier.

The (majority RE-publican) supreme court is pro abortion. And 30 years and millions of dollars in “pro-life” contributions later, the pro-life industry is no closer to changing that fact.

Personhood is the ethical argument, and the more we can get it on the ballot, into the courts, and into the forefront of American’s minds, the closer we will come to victory.

Regulating the murder of innocent people, and then claiming that “it’s the best we can hope for until we change the court” (for 30 years running) is a proven pathway to continued defeat.

oldcap

So then, if we should not murder, are we to conclude that you oppose the beating of the war drums for our sending more American men and women off to die in the ME?
Is the life of a Syrian or an Iraqi less valuable than that of a fetus?

dougmcburney

We should kill the guilty and protect the innocent fool.

oldcap

Where does it say THAT in the so-called prolife propaganda?

dougmcburney

The Apostle Paul confirms the legitimacy of the Death Penalty in the New Testament in Acts 4: “For if I am an offender, or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying”.

And Scripture is replete with admonition to protect the innocent, and not to murder: Ex 23, “do not kill the innocent and righteous”
Ps 10, “Under his tongue is trouble and iniquity.
He sits in the lurking places of the villages;
In the secret places he murders the innocent”. “Cursed is the one who takes a bribe to slay an innocent person.” -Deut. 27:25
“On
your skirts is found the blood of the lives of the poor innocents. I
have not found it by secret search, but plainly… Yet you say, ‘Because I
am innocent, Surely His anger shall turn from me.’ Behold [says God], I
will plead My case against you, because you say, ‘I have not sinned.'”
–Jer. 2:34-35
“Your
eyes and your heart are for nothing but your covetousness, for shedding
innocent blood, and practicing oppression and violence.” –Jer. 22:17
“For they have committed adultery, and blood is on their hands… and even sacrificed their sons…” –Ezekiel 23:37
…that no man might make his son or his daughter pass through the fire to Molech. –2 Kings 23:10
“You shall not murder.” –God, Exodus 20:13
“Jesus said, ‘You shall not murder…'” –God, Matthew 18:18

oldcap

Sorry, but that is not the topic under discussion, even if it is interesting that your god says save some and kill others.
Be that contradiction as it may, the question is the extent of support on the part of the profetallifers for children after they are born.
Adoption is too much of a burden; paying more taxes to support these children is too much of a burden.
Please tell us just exactly WHAT the profetallife movement, and you as one of them, would do to dispel the widely held notion that your movement is concerned about “children” from conception to birth and no further.
How much of your SELVES are you willing to put on the line for these now-real children?
Perhaps you may yet come to the conclusion that, if YOU are not going to go out of your way to help them, that it would have been better off if they had never been born.

dougmcburney

Adoption is not too much of a burden. There is a waiting list for the infants you say are better off dead.

Repent, or face the judgment.

oldcap

How arrogant that you, YOU! dare to speak for the Sky Pixie.

BTW, why isn’t YOUR name on that waiting list?

dougmcburney

I could ask you the same question, with the same arrogance and ignorance, but I have said what I have said. You no longer interest me.

oldcap

In fact, if you HAD, I would have responded that I made a difference in one boy’s life by adopting him – which is more than YOU can say.

dougmcburney

If an anonymous heathen, who advocates the killing of innocent people claims he adopted a child, should anyone believe him?

May I ask if you also killed him?

oldcap

Believe what you wish. This anonymous heathen knows the facts.
This anonymous heathen also seems to have a firmer grip on morality and ethics than some so-called Christians.

“I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.”…Gandhi.

dougmcburney

I was never a fan of Gandhi’s “do what I want or I’ll kill myself” tactics.

Jesus will judge you for (among other sins) the millions who were murdered with your consent, and despite all the good things you’ve done, you will be found lacking.

Christians are sinners just like you who simply acknowledge that our good works cannot save us from the condemnation we deserve.

And we warn heathens like you that the Judgment, and Hell awaits if you don’t repent and admit that only Christ’s works were good enough, and trust Him.

If you (and Gandhi) like Jesus so much, what is it about Him that causes you (and Gandhi) not to trust Him?

oldcap

Interesting for ts arrogance, but totally irrelevant to the discussion.
Please DO try to stay On Topic.
BTW, you certainly do prove Gandhi’s point.

oldcap

Support for the lives of BORN people is pro-life.

dougmcburney

Of course. But not at the expense of the unborn, or the helpless, or the innocent.

oldcap

Our obligation to real BORN people takes precedence over that for potential people.
Will you support much higher taxes to provide not only life but a “More Abundant Life” (Gee, where does THAT come from?) for all born children?

dougmcburney

Having “life, more abundantly” is a spiritual promise from Jesus to those who follow him. It is not a reference to the heathen, socialist welfare state.

And scientific analysis proves again that you are a fool. The DNA of an hours old single cell human blastocyst is just that, HUMAN! And it’s alive; not a “potential life” like evolutionist knuckle draggers like you would have people believe.

Tell your story walking Jack!

oldcap

“Having “life, more abundantly” is a spiritual promise from Jesus to
those who follow him. It is not a reference to the heathen, socialist
welfare state.”

And just who appointed you as the sole expert on the interpretation of that phrase?

At any rate, just what commitment do you believe you have to that child once it is born and is a real person?

Pilate on the balcony, perhaps?

dougmcburney

In your case, God appointed me, since you brought it up, and you obviously need a teacher. I am responsible for my children, and any I adopt. But I have no need to justify myself to you heathen. God will be the judge!

oldcap

For those of us for whom your god is non-existent, I can assure you that I can think of lots better teachers.
Sorry, but you’re fired.

dougmcburney

The Living God is like gravity. Whether you believe or not, you cannot escape it.

He is your creator, and he will be your judge or your savior. The choice is yours.

oldcap

I exercise choice #3 – to ignore your dire prediction.

IndyThought

Having the Queen of Shrill Abortion-on-Demand politics in Colorado will help those political candidates and ballot initiatives that seek to moderate that extreme view.
Welcome Your Highness.

Frank2525

There is something obscene about the prior postings. Somehow, after reading them, I see the complete (or ?) absence of women here, yet all this discussion by men. Unless I did not get the memo, I have never read or heard of a male being pregnant. So I finally visualized all these guys being in their 70s, 80s, etc. setting in a nursing home titillating each other with this subject. At 85, wife 79, with both of us having had surgery for different reasons, so neither of us will get pregnant. I am ready to face my maker, whenever called home, and answer for my deeds until now, or what I may do in rest of my days until that call. Are all of you really that involved? With the economy, so many without jobs, businesses closed or moved off-shore, higher taxes, and cost of living, while only top 10% of tax payers gaining, and this consumes your thoughts and efforts. Okay, if that is your only concern. But I am concerned about my children and grandchildren having to pay off student loans, debts, while their remaining funds after mandatory spending do not go to savings. Am I the only one who feels there must be more? And I do demand more of candidates than worrying about bedrooms and sexual stuff, when they are in late 40s, 50s, 60s, and older.

Joey Bunch has been a reporter for 28 years, including the last 12 at The Denver Post. For various newspapers he has covered the environment, water issues, politics, civil rights, sports and the casino industry.